Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Board Minutes - Jan. 19, 20211 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Town of Danby Planning Board Minutes of Regular Meeting January 19, 2021 PRESENT: Ed Bergman Scott Davis Kathy Jett Elana Maragni Bruce Richards Jody Scriber (Chair) OTHER ATTENDEES: Town Planner David West Town Board Liaison Leslie Connors (Town Board member) Recording Secretary Alyssa de Villiers Public Jeff Ayars, Marc Berger, Claudia Braymer, Nora Brown, Jeremy Craig, Justin Craig, Ted Crane, Toby Dean, Kevin Feeney, Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor), Katharine Hunter, Michael Nelson, Kim Nitchman, Russ Nitchman, Linda Santos, Adriel Shea, Kelly This meeting was conducted virtually on the Zoom platform. The meeting was opened at 7:00pm. (1) CALL TO ORDER/AGENDA REVIEW The selection of a Vice Chair was added as agenda item number eight. (2) PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR Joel Gagnon (Town Supervisor) suggested adding the selection of a Vice Chair to the agenda, which was done. Ted Crane read a prepared comment that addressed the Planning Board treating all applicants equally and not indicating in any way that it might consider incorporating factors that are not part of law and regulation into a decision. His explained that this statement was to explain his reasoning for a comment he had made at the previous meeting. 2 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Linda Santos said she was the real estate agent for Ted Melchen and was present in support of his request for subdivision approval and to answer any questions the Board might have (regarding the subdivision sketch conference on the agenda). Chair Scriber said she would be able to speak when they reviewed that project. In response to a question from Marc Berger, Planner West said privilege of the floor was the chance for people who are not applicants to say something. Mr. Berger said the flag lot on E. Miller Rd. that was on the agenda (as an informal review of sketch site plan) was the property adjacent to him. He said he did not know what would come up, so he did not know what to say about it at that particular moment. But he thought it worth mentioning that next week there would be a hearing on an Article 78 challenge to the BZA’s issuance of a variance with regard to that piece of land. He said he had definite questions about the sketch but confirmed that nothing determinative was happening at this meeting. He asked if any comments he might have could come later when it was actually being considered. Gagnon said that, while privilege of the floor allows people to comment outside of a matter that is theirs to be considered, the chair has the discretion to allow other comments later if they wish. Town Planner West read a letter he had received from Stanford Miller in opposition to any construction on the tract of land on Hornbrook Rd. that was on the agenda. Mr. Miller said it has been designated as wetland and asked that it be left in its natural state. (3) APPROVAL OF MINUTES MOTION: Approve the December 15th minutes Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber (4) TOWN BOARD LIAISON REPORT Leslie Connors (Town Board member) shared the following information: • She encouraged people to attend the Planning Group meetings. She said at the last meeting Planner West gave a great presentation on tools to influence development and to preserve open space; it can be accessed on the Town website. She said that if you want to know if there is a meeting, you can go to the calendar on the Town website. • The Planning Board has one vacant seat, and the Town has received three applications. She said the Town Board meeting was the following day and interviews would be happening th en. She said she had sent the Board copies of the applications and people could email her with questions. (5) DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 3 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES • Project: Subdivision Sketch Conference Location: 6.-1- 18.25 – Hornbook Rd Applicant: Edward Melchen Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declaration of Lead Agency and Classification of Land Division Project Description: The Applicant proposed subdividing the northern part of this 3-part parcel where it is divided by Hornbrook Rd. This will result in a total of 3 lots as the portions of the parcel on the southern sided of Hornbrook do not share a boundary. Applicant requests guidance on subdivision process for separating these parcels including a classification of the land division and guidance on required plat specifications. Planner West established that Mr. Melchen was not at the meeting, but Ms. Santos was there as a representative. He said the applicant had submitted a fairly complete package for a sketch plan . He said he had outlined questions for the Board to consider in the memo he provided, and the most important was how the subdivision would be classified, which is complicated by the fact that Mr. Melchen’s parcel is oddly shaped. When the piece Mr. Melchen wants to subdivide is removed, it will create two other lots instead of one, making it a standard subdivision rather than a minor subdivision. West said the other question is what additional things the Board would like to see on the plat. He specifically noted that the survey does not show the wetlands, which is a normal requirement for a subdivision plat. Ms. Santos said one map in the materials shows an overlay of the wet area, but it is not always the most accurate when you have an overlay, and sometimes mapping programs are using different sets of coordinates, which can create a slight misalignment. In her experience of the land, there is not anything wet close to the road as it shows up on the map; there is a lot of dry land right on the road front. Regarding wetlands, Bruce Richards said it was similar to the recent Nitchman subdivision where there was some question of what was included in the wetlands. (Mr. Nitchman later clarified that their map had the wetlands clearly delineated and the Board was considering buffer requirements). Richards said he thought they needed to get the wetlands defined, and the part that was classified wetlands should not be considered in any building lot. In his drive-by, he was not clear where someone would put a house. Ms. Santos pointed out that the current proposal was only for subdivision approval, although any buyer would want to know if they could build. Richards said that creating the lot means the Board assumes someone will build on it. He said he agreed with Crane’s earlier statement about living with things for a very long time, and he was not sure that parcel could stand alone and support construction. Ed Bergman said the lot would need a well and septic; if it is wetland, that could be a concern. Ms. Santos said any building for residential use would need a septic permit, and the Health Department would have purview over that. She said one consultant who has been to the site gave the opinion that the site was viable with the right system. Richards pointed out that a septic system was listed in the Short Environmental Assessment Form that was submitted. In response, Ms. Santos explained that it was new for the applicant to be asked to fill out all the paperwork, and he was making an educated guess as to what would happen with the lot. 4 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Scott Davis said the wetlands matter is broader than whether a septic can be on the property, and they want to consider the impact on the wetlands. Kathy Jett said she agreed with that and said she thought they needed more information in regard to that issue. Planner West said the Board should consider (1) additional things they want to see in the plat, (2) whether the Board would like the remaining portions of the lot surveyed, and (3) if the Board wanted to review the proposal as a standard subdivision or a simple (minor) subdivision. He said it sounded like the Board was suggesting either showing the overlayed wetlands or doing a delineation so they could evaluate the wetlands on the site. West explained that there is a lot of flexibility in the way the Board implements the subdivision regulations; the Board can waive requirements. When doing a standard subdivision, there is a set of additional requirements, including a 100’ wetland margin setback for any buildings, and it is usually a slightly longer process. This allows the Board to ask for more, which is more applicable for a neighborhood subdivision than in this case, but the threshold is three lots. He said the Board could decide to consider it a standard subdivision but choose to waive some requirements. Davis thought they could reduce everything to defining exactly where the wetland is and then deciding how much of a buffer the Board wants. Planner West said that for this meeting the Board only needed to decide what to request from the applicant. Chair Scriber summarized that everyone wanted to hear more about where exactly the wetlands are. Ms. Santos said she would be happy to meet with anyone who wanted to walk the lot. Richards said he thought they should consider it a standard subdivision, even if they are able to waive some requirements, so as not to give up any options as they move forward. Bergman agreed given that there were wetlands are involved; he wanted to have as much flexibility as possible to make sure they protect them. Ms. Santos said, regarding the question of surveys for the remaining lots, it puts a significant financial burden on the owner, and she asked for the Board’s consideration of the costs; she thought it would not be an insubstantial sum of money to require a seller to s pend up front. She noted that it seemed to her the lots already exist as stand-alone and what they are asking for is formal recognition of these stand-alone lots. Richards said he thought the surveys would be straightforward, but he was not worried about requiring surveys for them; the real concern was the stream, the way the land lies on the north side of the road, and having enough information to make sure a residence would not be a detriment to the area. Whether to have a public hearing at the following meeting was discussed. The conclusion was to wait on scheduling a public hearing. This was because the deadline for next month would be a week from this meeting, making it hard to get the wetland information in time, and the Board wanted to review the new information about the wetlands. MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency Moved by Richards, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber • Project: Informal Review of Sketch Site Plan – Car Lot 5 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Location: 7.-1- 85 - 1725 Danby Rd. Applicant: Justin Craig Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declaration of Lead Agency Project Description: The Applicant proposes building a parking lot for the display and sale of vehicles and requests guidance on site plan and special permit requirements including review process and what is required to be shown on a site plan and what will be waived. Planner West said the applicant wants to build a small used car sales lot, which is allowed in the Commercial C zone with a special use permit and site plan review. The applicant would like to know what the Board would like to see on a site plan as the Ordinance does not specify this. He drew attention to a list of possible requirements. He noted the proposal does not include any new buildings. As mentioned in his memo, West said that the Board may want to consider the preservation and protection of existing trees and vegetation to prevent additional runoff from impacting the stream. Bergman brought up the Town’s Commercial Design Guidelines and asked about how that would fit in with the project, for example with signage. The applicant, Mr. Craig, was present with his brother, who is also a partner in the business. Mr. Craig said they are trying to be able to sell two or three cars at a time in the front lawn area. He said they were thinking of a small sign between the ditch area and the garage. In response to a question from Chair Scriber, he described exactly where the cars would be located. He said the submitted drawing was sketched in based on a satellite view of the property. Maragni asked if the house would remain residential, and the applicant said it would. She asked if the lot would be paved or graveled, and the applicant thought just gravel at this point. Regarding the sign, she asked about how big it would be and whether it would be lit up. Scriber also asked what the sign would look like. The applicant said he thought black lettering on a white sign, probably not lit; he thought it would fit in well. Planner West asked if he could make a sketch of that with dimensions. Scriber also asked that he show the material of the sign. Planner West said the Board should consider how much more formal they wanted the site plan to become; for example, do they need something hand-drawn to scale or something by a landscape architect. Davis said he would be comfortable with hand-drawn to scale. He asked that Mr. Craig put the trees that are currently there on the site plan. Scriber added that she would like to see the drainage ditch more clearly as she was concerned what drains into it and where it goes. Planner West said it is culverted and looks like a ditch in this location, but it is technically a stream that runs into Buttermilk. Scriber asked if they would be working on the cars and if anything could get into the groundwater. Mr. Craig said they would just be selling them at this point; they would not be a registered repair shop. Bergman said that, regarding runoff, gravel is more porous than paved. He mentioned the possibility of a pitch going away from the ditch and that the applicant should consider how much runoff the project will cause and how much will run through it. He said, especially since it goes into Buttermilk, they should try not to have water rushing off in that direc tion. Scriber asked about landscaping around what they are doing to enhance it or help it fit with the rural character that the Town is hoping to maintain. Mr. Craig said he could put some shrubbery or ornamental grass to make it fit nicely, and Scriber thought that would be great. Richards added that controlling runoff is 6 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES the concern because the back side of the house is wetland and there is the stream in front; shrubs will help mitigate runoff. He said the goal is to keep velocity down, and to do it in a sheet manner rather than ditching it. Jett said she presumed the driveway would be enlarged by 25’. The applicant said yes, and it would probably be gravel and extend to the edge of the road. Jett asked if that needed special approval. Richards thought probably not if they did not need to add a culvert. Scriber asked how close other properties on the same side of the road are. Mr. Craig said th e property has 400’ of road frontage. He was not sure of distances to the neighboring houses. Planner West summarized that the Board wanted the drawing to scale, which will allow it to evaluate setbacks and the other requirements, a to-scale sketch of the sign specifying materials and indicating if there will be lighting, the locations of the trees that are there, and a landscaping plan for how to deal with runoff to keep it out of the stream. MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency Moved by Davis, seconded by Bergman The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber • Project: Informal Review of Sketch Site Plan – Home and Garage Location: 7.-1- 43.222 – E. Miller Rd. Applicant: Michael Nelson Anticipated Board action(s) this month: Declaration of Lead Agency Project Description: The Applicant proposes the construction of a single-family home, a garage, and a shed as well as the creation of a driveway to access these buildings. Site plan review was required as a condition of subdivision approval when this lot was requi red. The applicant wishes to build the garage before the house in order to secure equipment and building materials as well as tools for maintaining the land and requests the planning board’s guidance on site plan review requirements including review process, what is required to be shown, and what requirements the Planning Board will waive. At this time the house has not been designed though the general footprint is estimated on the sketch. Planner West explained that Mr. Nelson would like to build a house, a garage, and a shed on the property. The Board placed a requirement for site plan review for subsequent development on the lot when it was subdivided as well as additional setbacks. West said Mr. Nelson would prefer to build his garage first to prepare for building the house. The Board should let the applicant know what additional details it needs to complete site plan review. He said the Board should think about the ability to have a garage, an accessory use, that precedes the construction of the home. He thought there was a strong argument that if there is a site plan that includes a home, and you need the storage space to build that home, it makes sense that the garage could be accessory for a short period of time but not forever. He said the Town’s attorney has suggested considering a requirement that the home be built within a certain amount of time; two years might make sense to keep the use accessory to the residential use . He said Mr. Nelson has asked the 7 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Board to waive the requirements for elevations for approval of the site plan because the site plan was intended to protect the conditions that were put on the parcel. West said he had provided the Board with a list the Town has used in the past for site plan review. In this case, he noted it is a single-family house, which is relatively low impact, so the Board should consider what is necessary in terms of its review to carry out what it set forward in the requirements for subdivision. Davis said he recollected that their concerns about the placement of the house were related to it curving around behind a neighboring residence rather than the conformation of the flag lot. He asked to see where the existing house of the neighbor is to consider their viewshed. He also questioned whether the Board might want to put things on hold if there is a legal challenge pending and asked what would happen if a suit said the BZA ruling was invalid. Planner West said he had spoken with the Town attorney, and at this point there was nothing stopping the applicant from moving forward with an application as he has every right to apply and every right to the process. He said the second part of Davis’ question would be inappropriate to discuss because the Town is involved in a case. Maragni said the sketch looked like everything was being planned according to what the Planning Board had asked and she was not seeing much wrong with it at this time. She added that it made sense to her to build the garage first as that seemed like a great way to build a house. Jett agreed with Maragni that the applicant had drawn out exactly what it was they had had concerns about prior. Richards said he had driven by and had trouble figuring out where the corners of the property were. He said he tried to look at it from the neighbor’s point of view to see how much impact it would have on their viewshed. He did not see where it would have more of an impact than if someone quit mowing the lot and trees grew up. He agreed the proposed sketch stuck in the Board’s guidelines. Chair Scriber said she thought the suggestion of two years made sense to her. Mr. Nelson said he would be happy to sign something saying he would build a house at the location. However, he said he could not guarantee his finances in two years with the way the country is, so while he did not foresee problems, he wondered what would happen if he did not build. Davis expressed sympathy with this sentiment and posed the question, what if he never wanted to build a house and just have a garage? Town Supervisor Gagnon said the problem is that the Town’s zoning only allows one accessory building, and it has to be accessory to a primary use; it would not be a problem if it was an agricultural building. The listed possible uses in the Low Density Residential zone only include a single-family or two-family house, one accessory storage building, and a garage; if there is no house, it is not accessory to a house. Planner West said the way the Ordinance describes accessory and primary is in terms of use. A garage is allowed as an accessory to a residential use of the property, so there has to be a residential use established. He thought it was reasonable to say that getting an approved site plan and working on a building permit for a house is a residential use, which a garage could then be accessory to within some limitations. For example, it could be contingent on a house being built within a certain amount of time, and if there was an issue with financing 8 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES an extension could be asked for and reviewed. You could not have a garage on a property in perpetuity. He thought two years was a reasonable starting place. Mr. Berger, an adjacent homeowner, said he did not understand whether the garage would be a temporary structure and if it could ultimately be turned into an apartment lawf ully. Planner West said not by right in terms of the apartment question. He said the proposal for a garage is not temporary; what is temporary is it existing without a house that it is related to. Mr. Berger pointed out that he would be looking at the gara ge when he looks out his bedroom window. He said it is a large plot of land and the applicant was choosing to put the garage right in his line of sight. He thought that if he wanted to build the very same garage on his side of the property line, he would be required to observe a 75’ setback. (Secretary’s note: An accessory structure can be 10’ from a rear yard.) Mr. Berger said that based on the BZA’s resolution on the request for the variance, absent anything the Planning Board did, Mr. Nelson could have built the garage 2’ from that property line. He asked why this would be so, and Planner West answered that that is the way the zoning is written. Mr. Berger said he would assume when the zoning is written, it is not arbitrary and there is some logic and fairness. West said he understood how it seems confusing, but it is applying the rules as they are written. Mr. Nelson asked if he could put a fence up without a Planning Board review, and Planner West said he would get back to him about the fence requirements. Mr. Nelson said it would be over 150’ from Mr. Berger’s residence to the corner of his proposed shed, which means his garage will be farther away from Mr. Berger than Mr. Berger’s neighbor on the other side, and his residence will be over 250’ away. He added that while Mr. Berger would have to see his house, he will have to see Mr. Berger’s solar panels, which Mr. Berger recently put up and got a variance for, and they will be reflecting directly at him no matter where he puts his house. Mr. Berger responded that the solar panels are part of something Danby supports, i.e., supporting renewable energy, and the house on the other side of him has a conifer line creating shielding. Regarding the location of the garage and residence, Mr. Nelson noted that he is looking at a 300’ driveway as it is, which is a major expense, and he d id not think he could afford to put it back farther. Planner West summarized that it seemed like the Board thought what Mr. Nelson submitted already had the detail it needed for the analysis it wanted to do for site plan review, and Mr. Nelson could move forward by working to put in an application. MOTION: Declare the Planning Board Lead Agency Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber (6) PLANNING GROUP UPDATE 9 PLANNING BOARD MINUTES Joel Gagnon, Chair of the Planning Group, reported that Planner West gave a comprehensive review of options for conserving open space at the last meeting on January 5th. The next step is to convene the conservation and hamlet working groups, and those meetings have been scheduled. He encouraged anybody to jump in at any point. Maragni added to this saying that the meetings have been really informative and productive and she highly encourages anyone interested to come by. (7) PLANNER’S REPORT Planner West said he is halfway through his first month as full-time planner. He is looking at lists from previous planners of things they wanted to update or change and how to improve processes. The Town is working on the Planning Group and putting together a policy for the water district to allow for any adjacent property owners to tap into that if needed and how the Town would evaluate that. (8) SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR MOTION: Elect Ed Bergman as Vice Chair Moved by Bergman, seconded by Richards The motion passed. In favor: Bergman, Davis, Jett, Maragni, Richards, Scriber (9) ADJOURNMENT Chair Scriber asked Secretary de Villiers to write a thank you note from the Board to the previous Chair, Jim Rundle. Scriber also brought up the topic of trainings. Planner West said he would be in touch with a tracking spreadsheet. The meeting was adjourned at 8:48 p.m. ___________________________________________ Alyssa de Villiers – Recording Secretary